It's Culture, Stupid!

The continuously growing disenchantment with politics in Europe and the rise of right-wing populism in several EU Member States have put the political systems in Europe under pressure. Because socio-economic parameters have largely failed to explain recent changes in the political landscape of EU countries, new attention is being directed to the role of culture in our societies. The discussion is constructed around the fear of political regression, a roll-back of the rights of women and marginalised groups as well as the return of ethno-national ideologies.

In a way, this ‘cultural turn’ reflects a history of neglect of the cultural dimension in politics over recent decades. This neglect can be observed when budgetary priorities are defined, and it can be observed by looking at the allocation of political posts. Culture still comes under ‘AOB’. Yet the fear of being left behind in a globalised world, the impression of losing one’s cultural home, and a weakened sense of belonging have the potential to change the political direction of a country. Ask the British or Americans. The ‘cultural turn’ is something to look forward to in politics, but it hasn’t become reality yet.

At the EU level, several projects are in the pipeline: after years of work, the House of European History opened its gates this year in Brussels. In 2018, we are entering the European Year of Cultural Heritage, plus the newly established European Solidarity Corps will start its work. President Juncker is currently calling for a 9-fold increase in the ERASMUS+ budget for the period after 2020, and the EU institutions are committing themselves to ensuring a stronger role for culture in the EU’s external relations. I suggest placing four key dimensions at the centre of the notion of culture at the European level that have to be reflected in all branches of European cultural policy, be it educational, media or cultural programmes, inside or outside the EU.

Diverse: when we discuss European cultural policies, the emphasis lies on the diversity of European cultures in plural, and not on a single homogenous European culture. Furthermore, European cultures are not only the sum of 28 national cultures and its multiple regions. They are not closed boxes, but emerged in close exchange with and distinctly from each other. The simple fact that a large number of different cultures live on a relatively small territory is a central feature of our continent. This tradition of cultural diversity, interdependence and close interaction can be regarded as a European value.

EU cultural policy inside and outside the EU should always encompass remembrance policy and the responsibility for commemoration and respect towards the victims of our policies in the past.

Additionally, at all times the continent has been in close exchange with other regions. This brought and still brings a significant number of minority groups into European societies. This European cultural diversity raises questions that cultural policy must address. We must ask ourselves how European majority societies can permit room for difference and diversity and at the same time provide the context that offers its citizens a shared feeling of belonging. Cultural policy plays an essential role in protecting, valorising and managing cultural diversity in societies. It can contribute immensely to redefining the terms of belonging in European societies in such a way that cultural and religious traditions of all kinds can find their place in daily life. This is the conditio sine qua non for perceiving cultural diversity as an added-value by host societies and not a threat to traditional reference points in a community, such as marriage and family.

Democratic: the notion of culture in European cultural policy must essentially be a democratic notion. That means that culture is not used as a vehicle to transpose the idea of ethnic homogeneity, authority or even superiority. On the contrary, culture should provide room to embrace diversity and heterogeneity and be a platform for exchange on equal terms amongst different sections of society. The operationalisation of such a participative and fluid model of culture is not necessarily an easy exercise for European cultural policy and cultural institutions.

Over time, central national cultural institutions emerged with a mission of representation and identity formation. Opening up these institutions, breaking up linear national narratives and thus allowing minority cultures to be represented, experimenting with new processes of creation and curating, and leaving room for new institutions in the cultural domain are great challenges for a sector that is severely hit by budgetary pressures. This is even more the case in a sector that is sometimes dominated by traditional flagship institutions, whose conservatism can create even stronger inertia when it comes to structural reform.

Culture should provide room to embrace diversity and heterogeneity and be a platform for exchange on equal terms amongst different sections of society.

On a European scale, this also poses the problem of asynchrony between EU Member States. While some Member States are in the comfortable situation of investing more into the cultural sector, other national cultural scenes are suffering from austerity measures. The political debate on these challenges for European cultural diversity, their equality in representation inside and outside the EU, offline and online and with regard to the operationalisation of the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity in 2005 is only at the beginning.

Human-rights based: it must be avoided that, under the parachute of culture, people are deprived of their fundamental human rights. The fundamental human rights of each individual must be the starting point of all cultural freedom. To be very blunt: female genital mutilation cannot be regarded as a cultural tradition that should be protected and preserved under the auspices of cultural diversity. In my view, these central features of the notion of culture must build the yardstick for all European cultural policies and programmes, both inside and outside the European Union.

Two years later, on the initiative of the Green Group in the European Parliament, a Preparatory Action for Culture in EU External Relations was launched to map existing programmes and practices, thus providing a base for a comprehensive EU strategy for international cultural relations. Since then, the three central EU institutions have all positioned themselves and articulated their visions for the EU’s external cultural relations strategy.

The European Commission/EEAS communication ‘Towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations’ dated June 2016 is by far the most clear and detailed vision. The Parliament reacted to the proposals in an own report and the Council adopted different conclusions on the matter. The documents together stipulate a remarkable shift in the EU’s external cultural policy: the EU puts bottom-up approaches that allow a stronger participation of artists, cultural organisations and civil society at the centre of a future EU strategy. Such a change represents a fundamental shift in the EU’s and Member States’ cultural policy away from cultural diplomacy concepts, where the cultural dimension in external affairs takes the functions of a shop window for EU cultural productions. Instead, the idea is to strengthen people-to-people relations that allow the more active involvement of civil society and cultural actors. This could make cultural projects more democratic in their methods and more diverse in their content.

One of the elements of this axis will be the strengthening of the existing EU cultural programmes. Today, Creative Europe and Erasmus+ already provide fertile ground for intercultural understanding, innovation and strong bridges between European societies. This experience is to be further extended to third countries through a stronger external dimension. The basis for an EU strategy for international cultural relations has been laid over the last decade. Now is the time for the operationalisation of this exercise. For this purpose, the Council has set up the Friends of the Presidency Group, which aims to ‘draw up an integrated, comprehensive and step-by-step EU strategic approach to international cultural relations that explores synergies across all relevant policy areas’.

The idea is to strengthen people-to-people relations that allow a more active involvement of civil society and cultural actors. This could make cultural projects more democratic in their methods and more diverse in their content.

This is good, because it is important to use the current momentum that has been created with the joint communication of the Commission and EEAS and not let the papers drown in the EU’s institutional Bermuda triangle. Additionally, this debate is very timely with regard to the upcoming negotiation of the EU’s next multiannual financial framework (MFF) post-2020 and the structural reforms to the EU’s income and expenditure that Commissioner Oettinger is planning to present in May 2018.

I have the strong hope that the Friends of the Presidency Group and the continuing process will provide answers to key questions, such as: How can an international cultural relations strategy be effectively integrated into existing programmes and translated into specific actions? How can we ensure effective coordination, collaboration and co-creation amongst stakeholders in the EU and in the partner countries? How can we provide such activities with sustainable financing?

Integrating existing structures: the thematic spectrum for external cultural actions is wide. This is well reflected in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in which culture is not one single goal, but rather conceptualised as a horizontal dimension that can serve as facilitator for social inclusion, economic development and innovation, democracy, education, conflict prevention and reconciliation. In the EU’s external relations, this broad range of topics is covered by a large number of mostly independent programmes and, most recently, also by trust funds such as the European Neighbourhood Instrument, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the European Development Fund, the Instrument for Stability and Peace, the European Sustainable Development Fund and so forth. Moreover, all EU internal programmes for culture, education, youth and research include an external dimension that opens possibilities for the participation of third countries.

In order to achieve greater effectiveness and increase visibility, the new strategy should aim to overcome the current fragmentation in the implementation structures. The gathering of the different Commission directorates with the responsible actors in the EEAS in a working group is useful at the policy level. The cultural diplomacy platform is a first step towards tying up loose ends and providing a platform for exchange for implementing organisations and beneficiaries. Further pooling of information to provide an easy access for potential beneficiaries to the numerous cultural activities under the different programme headings is desirable. This should go hand-in-hand with clearly dedicated budget lines for cultural activities in the respective programmes.

Sustainable financing: the fragmentation in the programming of current EU international cultural relations is accompanied by fragmentation in the funding of cultural activities outside the EU. Even though it is unrealistic to expect an overall programme for external cultural relations to be created in the next MFF, it will be crucial for the success of a new EU international cultural relations strategy that it is explicitly mentioned in the relevant existing or new budget lines. This will help to guarantee a certain amount of investment, allow for long-term planning of activities and ensure visibility in the budget negotiations.

An adequate budgetary basis is not only important for the usefulness of the projects that are to be realised in the context of the external cultural strategy, but also for meeting the expectations that are being raised amongst beneficiaries and partner countries. Furthermore, we are facing different national budgetary situations in the EU and the expenditure for external cultural relations and national cultural institutes varies considerably. To a certain degree, EU international cultural relations can serve to create a more balanced representation of our continent’s cultural diversity and encourage stronger involvement of a diversity of cultural actors and civil society in international cultural projects. Last but not least, the debate about an EU international cultural relations strategy has thrown up a number of innovative ideas.

Flexible collaboration amongst actors: with regard to the implementation in the field, a controversial debate is taking place around the EU’s involvement through socalled cultural focal points or cultural policy attachés in EU delegations. A first attaché has already been deployed in Beijing. While such institutions can strongly contribute to better coordination among EU and Member State activities within partner countries and facilitate the close involvement of cultural and civil society actors, the same function might be effectively delegated to existing structures, such as one national cultural institute as a lead organisation and as part of a EUNIC cluster. Such consideration and the need for EU involvement will be different in every partner country and partner region.

A Cultural Visa Programme along the lines of the existing Scientific Visa Programme can be envisaged to eliminate obstacles to mobility in the cultural sector.

This might depend on the historic relations with the country, the intensity of cooperation, and the existing structures and purpose of individual programmes and projects. EU cultural policy would be well advised to allow itself such flexibility in the implementing structure. To present my vision for the EU’s international cultural relations in a nutshell:

(a) it should be designed on the basis of a democratic, post-colonial and human rights-based understanding of culture;

(b) it should be open in its method of implementation to reflect different starting points for cultural relations between the whole of the EU and its international partners, and furthermore to allow room for co-design of the programmes;

(c) it should always take on the role of coordination, cross-stimulation and complementarity in order to respect the specific set of competencies between the EU level and its Member States.

Taking these principles seriously would already represent a paradigm shift in the EU’s external cultural policy.